An approach to expert assessment in software engineering
- 49 Downloads
An approach is proposed to the solution of formalized problems of assessment of the activity that produces and maintains software systems (SSs). Such assessment is realized by using expertises that form a new assessment process adequate to the activity needs and specifics with an environment common to the expertises. The following mathematical apparatus is elaborated for expertises: a framework (target functions and executing mechanisms), a model and methods (formalisms for improving the quality and reusing the results of expertises) of an assessment process, and tools for integrating the apparatus into software development management processes. The approach is theoretically justified. Prospects of developing the proposed approach are described.
Keywordsproduction of software systems assessment problem mathematical apparatus expertise technology model of an expert assessment process ontology homomorphism metrized similarity value tree validity of an expert decision
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.ISO/IEC TR 19759:2005, Software Engineering – Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (2005), http://www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/swebok/swebok.htm.
- 2.Guide to PMBOK. A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK GUIDE, Third Edition, http://www.pmi.org/emeaelink/pmiE-link10-04.pdf.
- 3.Computing Curricula, http://computer.org/education/cc2001.
- 4.E. M. Lavrishcheva, G. I. Koval and T. M. Korotun, “An approach to the software quality management,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 5, 758–768 (2006).Google Scholar
- 5.I. Sommerville, Software Engineering [Russian translation], Izd. Dom “Williams,” Moscow–St. Petersburg–Kiev (2002).Google Scholar
- 6.E. M. Lavrishcheva, Programming Methods: Theory, Engineering, and Practice [in Russian], Naukova Dumka, Kiev (2006).Google Scholar
- 7.E. M. Lavrishcheva, “Software engineering as a scientific and engineering discipline,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 3, 324–332 (2008).Google Scholar
- 8.E. M. Lavrishcheva, “Classification of software engineering disciplines,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 6, 792–796 (2008).Google Scholar
- 9.M. Matinlassi, E. Niemela, and L. Dobrica, Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method. A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture, ESPOO 2002, http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2002/P456.pdf.
- 10.V. M. Glushkov, Foundations of Paperless Informatics [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1982).Google Scholar
- 11.P. I. Andon, L. D. Babko, and G. I. Koval, DSTU ISO/IEC 14756:2008 Information Technologies. Measurement and Assessment of Performance of Software Systems, 1st Edition, Derzhspozhivstandard (2008).Google Scholar
- 12.G. B. Moroz and T. M. Korotun, “Risk-operational approach to the solution of the problem of optimum release of software systems," Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 231–236 (2006).Google Scholar
- 13.F. G. Olumofin and V. B. Misic, “Extending the ATAM architecture evaluation to product line architectures,” http://www.cs.umanitoba.ca/~vmisic/pubs/tr0502.pdf.
- 14.D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press (1986).Google Scholar
- 15.D. S. Shmerling, S. A. Dubrovskii, T. D. Arzhanova, and A. A. Frenkel, “Expert judgments: Methods and applications,” Stat. Methody Analiza Expertn. Otsenok, Uch. Zap. po Statistike, 29, Nauka, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
- 16.B. G. Litvak, Expert Examination and Decision-Making [in Russian], Patent, Moscow (1996).Google Scholar
- 17.O. O. Slabospic’ka, “Integrating model of the process of expert assessment activity in life cycles of software systems,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 279–287 (2008).Google Scholar
- 18.L. J. Osterweil, B. I. Simidchievz, L. A. Klarke, et al., “Representing process variation with a process family,” in: Q. Wang, D. Pfahl, and D. M. Raffo (eds.), Software Process Dynamics and Agility, International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA (2007), pp. 109–120, http://laser.cs.umass.edu/techreports/07-13.pdf.
- 19.N. F. Noy, R. W. Fergerson, and M. A. Musen, The Knowledge Model of Protégé-2000: Combining Interoperability and Flexibility, www.pms.ifi.lmu.de/mitarbeiter/ohlbach/Ontology/Protege/SMI-2000830.pdf.
- 20.A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Blázquez, M. Fernández, et al., Ontologies at the Knowledge Level Using the Ontology Design Environment, http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KAW/KAW98/blazquez/.
- 21.E. P. Ilyin and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Forms, metrics, and properties of the similarity relation between concepts in ontologies of expert viewpoints,” Probl. Progr., No. 4, 39–49 (2005).Google Scholar
- 22.A. M. Rappoport and M. V. Schneiderman, “Analysis of expert judgments represented by structures,” Prikl. Mnogomern. Stat. Analiz, Uch. Zap. po Statistike, Nauka, Moscow, No. 33, 150–164 (1978).Google Scholar
- 23.E. P. Ilyin, Yu. V. Ol’khovskaya, and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Construction and substantiation of the generalized tree of value criteria in taking into account different viewpoints on a multicriteria assessment problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 344–352 (2004).Google Scholar
- 24.E. P. Ilyina and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Objectives and criteria of logical-statistical analysis of expert preferences under conditions of a conflict between viewpoints on the object domain of a choice problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 1–2, 471–483 (2000).Google Scholar
- 25.O. A. Slabospickaya, “A formal apparatus of expert solution of a multicriteria assessment problem with allowance for some viewpoints on the problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 1–2, 430–440 (2002).Google Scholar
- 26.F. Francella and D. Bannister, New Method of Personality Study [Russian translation], Progress, Moscow (1987).Google Scholar
- 27.O. A. Slabospickaya, “An approach to the development of support tools for expertise of hierarchical alternatives in a developing object domain,” Probl. Progr., No. 4, 51–58 (1998).Google Scholar
- 28.M. Hollender and D. A. Vulf, Nonparametric Statistics [Russian translation], Finansy i Statistika, Moscow (1983).Google Scholar